Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arun Jaitley National Inst. Of ... vs Central Administrative Tribunal ... on 14 December, 2022
108 CWP No. 28735-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 28735-2022
Date of Decision: 14.12.2022
Arun Jaitley National Institute of Financial Management (AJNIFM),
Pali Road, Sector 48, Faridabad
......Petitioner
Vs.
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and others
.........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Present: Mr. Barjesh Mittal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
*****
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (ORAL)
The present writ petition has been filed against the interim
order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Tribunal), on 27.07.2022 (Annexure P-2), whereby the applicant
(respondent no. 2 herein), who was to retire at the age of 60, was granted
the benefit of status quo with regard to the services on account of the
decision in CWP No. 20447 of 2020, titled as Dr. Jogender Pal Singh
and others vs. Union of India and others, decided on 01.03.2021, by the
Division Bench of this Court whereby it was held that faculty members are
entitled to continue in service uptil the age of 65 years with Institutes
recognized by All India Council for Technical Education.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an
application for modification of the interim order bearing MA No. 1767 of
2022 (Annexure P-3) has been filed, taking various grounds that the
1 of 3
petitioner is a Central Training Institute and the principles laid down in the
judgment of this Court as such could not be applicable. It is further
submitted that the pleadings are complete before the Tribunal and is now
fixed for 21.12.2022.
Accordingly, learned counsel submits that he would be
satisfied if directions are issued to the Tribunal to decide the application of
vacation of stay/the original application.
Since the petitioner-institute was not heard at that time when
the initial stay order was passed and the relief as such granted, we are not
issuing notice to the employee as it would only cause a hardship as such to
engage a counsel for defending the matter which we are not deciding on
merit as such at this stage.
We have pursued the interim orders passed by the Tribunal,
which would go onto show that the matter has been taken at short intervals
and that the pleadings were only completed as per order dated 09.11.2022
(copy annexed along with Annexure P-10), and thereafter, the matter was
ordered to be listed before the Division Bench and the interim order was
continued.
It is not disputed that the employee has superannuated on
30.09.2022 and by virtue of the said order, he continues in service and
apparently, no condition as such be imposed also as to whether the said
order of status quo as such would entitle him to draw any emoluments or
refund them in case the original application does not succeed.
In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion to
request the Tribunal to take a call on the application for vacation of stay at
2 of 3
the earliest or if possible to decide the main application.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid
observations.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
December 14, 2022 (HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN)
nitin JUDGE
Whether Speaking Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
